India, Pakistan And The Trumpian Turnabout

Last Updated:
US President Donald Trump has spoken of wanting to mediate in resolving the Kashmir issue, which has played into Pakistan's hands
The fall-out from India's retaliation against Pakistan for the horrific Pahalgam terrorist attack has been bilateral, regional and international.
At the bilateral level, a powerful signal has gone to Pakistan that henceforth India will not tolerate terror attacks engineered against India. Talk of zero tolerance of terrorism has moved from rhetoric to a robust military response, despite escalatory risks.
That Pakistan has nuclear weapons is no longer considered a deterrent to appropriate levels of Indian retaliation. India, in any case, has no reason to pose an existential threat to Pakistan. Just as India has to control the escalatory ladder, Pakistan too has to do, as India also possesses nuclear weapons. Pakistan's belief that under the nuclear overhang it can pursue the low-cost option of conducting terror attacks against India has now been severely challenged. As in the case of the proxy war in Ukraine between NATO and Russia, both having formidable nuclear arsenals, the scope of conventional warfare has been shown to be considerable. This would not be lost on both Pakistan and India.
It is difficult at this stage to determine whether Pakistan has learnt a hard lesson and will avoid the risk of staging terror attacks against India in the future. It may yet be tempted to organise small-scale terror attacks on Indian soil and test India's willingness to retaliate on a large scale. Pakistan has shown over the years that it can take the risk of playing the terrorist card even against its benefactors like the US, calculating that the latter would place self-limits on its response by weighing costs and benefits of a strong response. India too would have to consider whether a limited Pakistan-backed terrorist incident in the future would require a major military response.
Part of the reason why the Western narrative has been in Pakistan's favour is the West's concern that accepting that the Pakistani military failed to defend the country would have severe repercussions internally in a Pakistan already in the throes of a political and economic crisis, and even a security one with the activities of the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), the Pakistani Taliban. (TTP) and the Afghanistan Taliban. The absurd result of this make-believe success of Pakistan against India is the self-elevation of Pakistan's army chief to the rank of Field Marshal. This may well mean that a rabid, India-hating Islamist like General Asim Munir could well continue to believe that periodically bleeding India through terrorism is a realistic option. The Pakistani political class will now have even less control over a pumped-up Field Marshal.
At the regional level, the consequences of India's military action could well mean more attacks on Pakistani security forces and other targets by the BLF and the TTP as well. India has reached out to the interim Taliban government in Kabul at the political level for the first time, with India's External Affairs Minister speaking to the Taliban Foreign Minister. This conversation came days after the Taliban administration condemned the Pahalgam terror attack.
Iran strongly condemned the Pahalgam terror attack too, with its official statement locating Pahalgam in India. At the same time, somewhat surprisingly, at the level of its Foreign Minister who was to visit India, Iran publicly announced its desire to play a mediatory role between India and Pakistan, knowing well India's rejection of any third-party role in India-Pakistan issues. For Iran this was a way to balance its ties with India and Pakistan. Islamic solidarity with Pakistan is a factor. Both the Supreme Leader and the Iranian president have madereferences to Kashmir in the past to which India has objected.
India's major partners in the Arab world have all strongly condemned the Pahalgam terrorist attack. However, they have all advocated restraint and de-escalation of tensions, with Saudi Arabia sending its Minister of state for Foreign Affairs Affairs to visit India and Pakistan on May 8 and to 9 de-escalate tensions. Indonesia too has urged both parties to exercise restraint and prioritise dialogue in resolving the crisis. Malaysia's prime minister bought Pakistan's spurious line by affirming his country's support for an independent and transparent investigation to identify those responsible for the attack at Pahalgam.
Although Turkey too condemned the terrorist attack at Pahalgam, it supported Pakistan's call for an investigation into it. Turkey has been arming Pakistan and its drones have been used against India in the recent conflict. With Turkey being the only country to mention the Kashmir issue in the UNGA the backlash against Turkey has been severe this time, including the cancelling of the contract of its major airport handling company for national security reasons.
China, which is today Pakistan's biggest military and economic partner, has tried to play a complex balancing diplomatic act of going along with the UNSC's strong statement on the Pahalgam terrorist act but joining Pakistan to ask for an impartial international probe into it. China limited itself to calling India's military response 'regrettable". India's NSA thought it politic to reach out to China's Wang Yi. China no doubt assisted Pakistan in this conflict by supplying additional military equipment as well as intelligence inputs. One can foresee that China will bolster Pakistan's military capacity against India especially in areas where Pakistan's defence gaps have been exposed. The China-Pakistan nexus will continue to be a major security challenge for India.
At the international level, the EU and individual European countries had condemned the Pahalgam attack. After India's retaliation the EU, while recognising that every state has the duty and the right lawfully to protect its citizens from acts of terror, called on both parties to exercise restraint, to de-escalate tensions, desist from further attacks to safeguard civilian lives on both sides, and urged both sides to engage in dialogue. France expressed its wholehearted solidarity with India and its support for India in its fight against terrorist groups, but expressed its deep concern over the military developments and called for de-escalation and protection of civilians. Germany too followed a similar line. The G7 statement too called for immediate de-escalation and encouraged both countries to engage in direct dialogue towards a peaceful outcome.
President Donald Trump's position on the conflict has been the most unexpected. He has shifted attention away from the core reason why India had to finally change the paradigm in its response to Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism by hitting at the terror hubs on its soil. Trump should have found a way to allude to this in some way in his statements and supported India's step, as he has his own concerns about Islamic terrorism and extremism from which the US itself has suffered even at Pakistan's hands.
Instead, in his self-projection as a peacemaker, he shifted the focus to a ceasefire, as in the case of the Ukraine conflict. In the latter case he acknowledged the legitimacy of Russia's case and made his distaste of Zelenskyy known. In India's case, he has equated India with Pakistan, Modi with Pakistani leaders, heaping praise on the quality of Pakistani leadership, and calling Pakistan a great country which makes excellent products. He has promised to increase trade ties with. Pakistan.
Trump has embarrassed India on several counts. He said that he had mediated a ceasefire and chose to announce it even before India and Pakistan could, giving the impression that India succumbed to US pressure. He linked this pressure to trade. This has forced India to clarify that there was no mediation by the US or anyone else, that India made its position clear to the US and others that if Pakistan sought a ceasefire its general had to speak to his Indian counterpart. India also affirmed that trade did not figure at all in exchanges with the US.
Trump has spoken of wanting to mediate in resolving the Kashmir issue, which has played into Pakistan's hands, as this is what Pakistan has always sought. US mediation, in Pakistan's eyes, means territorial concessions by India. Trump has also claimed that he has prevented a nuclear war, and has. saved millions of lives. This too serves Pakistan's strategy of stoking fears in the international community about the danger of a nuclear conflict erupting in the subcontinent if India-Pakistan issues remained unresolved.
top videos
View all
During his recent meeting in the White House with the South African President, Trump was back at lauding Pakistan's great leaders, while also saluting Modi, an equivalence that boosts the status of Pakistan and its leaders, which even the Islamic countries and China as well do not do, and diminishes India and its leaders. When he said this the Pakistan army chief had declared himself a Field Marshal, no doubt emboldened by Trump's championing of Pakistan. While Trump had nothing to say about Pakistani political and military travesty, he is insouciant about the damage he is causing to US-India relations
Kanwal Sibal is a former Indian Foreign Secretary. He was India's Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
donald trump
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
May 23, 2025, 17:28 IST
News opinion Opinion | India, Pakistan And The Trumpian Turnabout

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Scroll.in

24 minutes ago

• Scroll.in

How the Israel-Iran conflict could impact India

On June 13, the Israeli military began striking what it claimed were nuclear targets and other sites in Iran, with the aim of stalling Tehran's nuclear programme. Iran retaliated with missile attacks on Israel. The official toll in Iran is at least 430 so far, while at least 25 persons have died in Israel. The continued exchange of fire has led to concerns of a wider regional conflict that the United States could get drawn into. Washington is an ally of Israel and acts as a guarantor of the country's security. Tehran has rejected US President Donald Trump's demand for an ' unconditional surrender ' and vowed to fight back. The prevailing uncertainty has led to a spike in global oil prices. The price of benchmark Brent crude had jumped to $78 per barrel by Thursday from $69 per barrel on June 12, the day before the conflict began. But the spike was not because of Israeli military's strikes reportedly on the Shahran oil depot in Tehran and one of Iran's largest refineries in Shahr Rey. These actions have little impact on Iranian energy exports. Instead, the spike in prices primarily stem from concerns about the possible blocking of the Strait of Hormuz amid the conflict. The closure could threaten global energy security. The chokepoint The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterbody that connects the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. In 2024, an average 20 million barrels of oil was transported through the strait every day. That was about one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption. This makes the Strait of Hormuz one of the most strategically important chokepoints. Iran has in the past threatened to block the waterbody in retaliation to pressure from the West. On Sunday, the Iranian Parliament decided that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, state-run Press TV quoted lawmaker Major General Kowsari as saying. The final decision will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council, the member of the parliamentary national security commission added. Unlike other chokepoints such as the Suez Canal or the Strait of Malacca, there is no practical alternative for fuel supplies to bypass the Strait of Hormuz in large volumes. Cargo ships are already sailing closer to the Omani coast and have been advised by maritime agencies and governments to avoid Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported on Wednesday. An attempt to shutter the strait will not go unchallenged because of the regional powers' strategic interest in keeping fuel supply open. But the ensuing military confrontation may still disrupt supplies to some extent. India's interest When Tel Aviv and Tehran last exchanged missile fire in October, former Indian diplomat Navdeep Suri had told Scroll that if the conflict escalated and became an all-out war, Iran, feeling threatened, had the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz. In that case, New Delhi will be staring at a scenario that will 'directly impact India's energy security', he had said. 'A very large chunk of India's energy supplies come from there and that could really be serious for us,' explained Suri, who served as India's ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. 'It's in our interest that it doesn't get out of hand.' India consumes 5.5 million barrels of crude per day for refining. Of this, 1.5 million barrels come through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. If the strait gets blocked, Amena Bakr, the head of Middle East and OPEC+ insights at analytics firm Kpler, told CNBC International on June 13 that oil prices could jump to three-digits. To put the impact of such a scenario into context: a spike of every $10 per barrel drives up inflation in India by about 0.5%, financial services company Morgan Stanley had estimated in April 2024. But Puri told NDTV that closing the strait was not in Iran's own interest. Yet, he said, India remained comfortably placed to meet its fuel needs, adding that New Delhi can tap into alternative supplies if needed. Here is a summary of the week's other top stories. Countering Trump's claims. Prime Minister Narendra Modi told United States President Donald Trump that India will never accept mediation to resolve tensions with Pakistan. The topic came up during a phone call when Trump asked for the details about India's military strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on Pakistan in May, said Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Trump was told that India had agreed to the ceasefire only on Islamabad's request, said Misri. The 'halt to military action was directly between India and Pakistan', the foreign secretary quoted Modi as having reiterated. The call between the two leaders came against the backdrop of the US president repeatedly claiming that he helped settle the tensions between India and Pakistan. New Delhi has rejected Trump's assertions. , writes Rohan Venkataramakrishnan A thaw in relations. India and Canada agreed to reinstate high commissioners in each other's capitals. This was announced after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney met on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit. Other diplomatic steps 'to restore stability in the relationship' will 'follow in due course', said New Delhi. In October, New Delhi and Ottawa expelled several diplomats amid frosty bilateral relations. Ties between India and Canada strained in September 2023 after Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister at the time, told his country's Parliament that intelligence agencies were actively pursuing 'credible allegations' tying agents of the Indian government to the murder of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada. New Delhi has rejected Canada's allegations. The language debate. Opposition leaders criticised Union Home Minister Amit Shah for saying that those who speak English in India will soon feel ashamed. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that English was 'not a barrier, but a bridge', adding that the language provides employment and boosts people's self-confidence. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP Kanimozhi said to Shah that 'the only thing to be ashamed of is imposing your will on the people and trying to destroy the pluralism of India'. Shah's comment on Thursday came against the backdrop of several state governments and regional parties accusing the Union government of imposing Hindi through the National Education Policy's three-language formula. Also on Scroll this week for a curated selection of the news that matters throughout the day, and a round-up of major developments in India and around the world every evening. What you won't get: spam.

News18

26 minutes ago

• News18

Nobel Recommendation To Condemnation: How Iran Strikes Strain Pakistan's Ties With US

Last Updated: The country, which had recommended US President Donald Trump's name for the 2026 Nobel Peace prize on June 21, condemned the strikes on Tehran on June 22 The United States' strikes on the nuclear sites in Iran is a major diplomatic setback for Pakistan. The country, which had recommended US President Donald Trump's name for the 2026 Nobel Peace prize on June 21, condemned the strikes on Tehran on June 22. 'Pakistan condemns the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities which follow the series of attacks by Israel. We are gravely concerned at the possible further escalation of tensions in the region," said Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar in an official statement. — Ishaq Dar (@MIshaqDar50) June 22, 2025 WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 21? Pakistan lauded Trump for his role in negotiating the May 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire, a move they believed demonstrated his commitment to peace. India has maintained that the US had no role in putting Operation Sindoor on halt and that the ceasefire was agreed upon based on Pakistan's request. Pakistan's Army Chief Asim Munir's White House meeting with Trump on June 18 also signalled closer ties. 'Pakistan's nomination of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize was not just a symbolic gesture. It was a strategic effort to secure the U.S. support on key issues such as the Kashmir conflict and economic cooperation in emerging sectors like cryptocurrency and critical minerals," said intelligence sources. Analysts said Pakistan was also attempting to appeal to Trump's ego in the hope of dissuading him from taking aggressive action against Iran, thus maintaining regional stability and gaining leverage in their ongoing diplomatic efforts. WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 22? The U.S. strikes on June 22 have put Pakistan in a precarious position. The country, which shares a 900-km border with Iran, relies heavily on Tehran for trade, security, and the stability of its Shia community, which constitutes 15-20% of its population. The escalation threatens to destabilise Balochistan, a region already plagued by separatist movements, and could potentially embolden Sunni jihadist groups like Jaish al-Adl. While Tehran has refrained from publicly criticising Pakistan, the trust between the two neighbours is undoubtedly strained. Indian intelligence sources said Pakistan's diplomatic manoeuvre with the Nobel nomination was fraught with risks, given its significant dependence on Iran. The fallout from the U.S. strikes underscores Islamabad's limited influence in the broader U.S.-Iran conflict and highlights the fragility of its multi-alignment strategy. 'Moving forward, Pakistan faces the daunting task of balancing its relationships with both Tehran and Washington. This requires deft diplomacy to navigate an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, a challenge that appears near-impossible amid the current crises," said sources.

India Today

26 minutes ago

• India Today

Decoding the US strikes on Iran

US President Donald Trump embarked on the riskiest move of his presidency thus far by striking at Iran's uranium enrichment sites at Natanz, Fordow and said that a 'full payload of bombs was dropped on the primary site Fordow'.A full payload for the six B-2/A Spirit stealth bombers would mean a total of 12 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP). Each B-2 carries two MOPs, the only weapons that can penetrate the Fordow uranium enrichment site buried nearly 90 metres below the Each 14-ton MOP has over 2 tons of explosives. The US also fired 30 other Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles (TLACMs) from submarines in the Arabian Sea. Each Tomahawk has a range of 1500 kilometres and carries a 450 kg explosive warhead. These would have been fired at the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites, which are not that deeply buried and can hence be targeted by conventional B-2s flew enormous distances to target Iranian sites - over 40 hours of continuous flying time from the continental United States and possibly, multiple refuels in the air from aerial is not known whether the mission was carried out by the six B-2s that took off from the US and flew over the Pacific and were tracked by commercial flight trackers, or whether it was another six B-2s which perhaps took off in the dark and struck from the Atlantic are the biggest US air strikes on any country since the 2017 MOAB attack on ISIS insurgents in damage assessments of these attacks have not been circulated yet, and it is too early to judge the impact of these strikes - but this quantum of ordnance will mean that Iran's nuclear enrichment programme has been set back by over a few would likely have spirited away the HEU for use in a handful of bombs, or for building a Radiologically Dispersed Device aka a 'dirty bomb'. It will not have the capacity to produce enriched uranium for full-fledged nuclear weapons capability. That option is now off the HAPPENS NOW?Israel is the biggest winner from this present conflict. Post Hamas' horrific October 7, 2023 massacre of Israeli civilians, Israel embarked on a war of attrition which targeted Hamas, Hezbollah and the three are Iranian proxies. On June 13, Israel launched direct air strikes on Iran after IAEA assessments said Iran was enriching uranium close to weapons-grade levels. Israel's air strikes killed several Iranian scientists and military leaders, but could not derail Iran's nuclear weapons programme. For that, Israel needed the US to intervene. Which it did on June IRAN REACT?advertisementThis is the biggest question being asked now. The joint US-Israeli attacks have posed an existential challenge to Iran's Islamic regime unlike any it has faced in 45 years - not the bloody eight-year war with Iraq which ended in 1988 and not even the massive street protests in 2021-22. Israeli and American jets have pounded targets at US has defanged its nuclear capabilities. Iran says it will retaliate, but the space for such attacks is extremely constricted. It can shoot a few ballistic missiles at the eight permanent US bases in and around West so would bring down immediate US retaliation from the carrier strike groups and fighter aircraft massing in the Central Command war theatre. Iran could fire anti-ship ballistic missiles in an attempt to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, through which a quarter of the world's oil and 20 per cent of the world's LNG passes through. But this move too will invite US began building the Fordow uranium enrichment site around 2006, some years after the US invaded Iraq and unseated Saddam Hussein. With the US on a rampage after the 9/11 strikes, knocking down the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam, Iran believed it was of the US striking at Iran quickly evaporated when the US became entrenched in fighting twin insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2025, with the US and Israel staring down gunsights at Iran, the options before Ayatollah Khamenei are bleak. He could choose the path of least resistance. Launch symbolic strikes at the US and Israel, come back to peace talks and focus on rebuilding Iran's shattered military capabilities.(Sandeep Unnithan is an author and senior journalist. He is the Editor-in-Chief of Chakra Newz, a digital media platform.(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Tune InMust Watch